Abstract
Aim
To explore the attitudes, preferences, and barriers of DMEK among corneal specialists in Saudi Arabia.
Method
An anonymous survey was sent through an online platform to members of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society. The survey was designed to capture data covering: demographic data, practice patterns of keratoplasty techniques, DMEK technique preferences, barriers, and facilitators to performing DMEK.
Results
Thirty-five (33% response rate) surgeons participated in the questionnaire. Sixty-eight percent were in practice for less than or equal to 10 years. Thirteen surgeons were performing DMEK. Participating in any training capacity was observed among surgeons who performed DMEK (92%). The main selection criteria for this procedure were patients with normal anterior chamber anatomy (77%). The main barrier against DMEK adoption among surgeons who do not perform the procedure was the lack of experience (91%). Strategies to help begin performing DMEK were eye banks support (prepared grafts, backup tissue for inadvertent loss), access to wet-lab training courses, and higher surgical volume.
Conclusion
DMEK is not highly performed among corneal specialists in Saudi Arabia; however, there is evident interest in adopting this technique. Strategies toward filling the gap of lacking experience would facilitate the adoption of the procedure. Eye banks play a crucial role by providing prepared tissues, which would lessen part of the technical difficulty.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data are available upon a reasonable request from the authors.
References
Fernandez MM, Afshari NA, Fernandez MM et al (2010) Endothelial keratoplasty: from DLEK to DMEK. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 17:5–8
Price FW, Price MO, Price FW et al (2013) Evolution of endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 32:S28–S32
Terry MA, Ousley PJ, Terry MA et al (2006) Deep lamellar endothelial keratoplasty: early complications and their management. Cornea 25:37–43
Statistical Report - Eye Bank Association of America (EBAA) (2018) https://restoresight.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2018_Statistical_Report-Complete-1.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2021
Dapena I, Ham L, Melles GRJ et al (2009) Endothelial keratoplasty: DSEK/DSAEK or DMEK—the thinner the better? Curr Opin Ophthalmol 20:299–307
Sharma N, Maharana PK, Singhi S et al (2017) Descemet strip** automated endothelial keratoplasty. Indian J Ophthalmol 65:198–209
Singh A, Zarei-Ghanavati M, Avadhanam V et al (2017) Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes of descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet strip** endothelial keratoplasty/descemet strip** automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 36:1437–1443
Zhu L, Zha Y, Cai J et al (2018) Descemet strip** automated endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a meta-analysis. Int Ophthalmol 38:897–905
Li S, Liu L, Wang W et al (2017) Efficacy and safety of descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet’s strip** endothelial keratoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 12(12):e0182275
Pavlovic I, Shajari M, Herrmann E et al (2017) Meta- analysis of postoperative outcome parameters comparing descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet strip** automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 36:1445–1451
Deng SX, Lee WB, Hammersmith KM et al (2018) Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: safety and outcomes: a report by the American academy of ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 125:295–310
Price DA, Kelley M, Price FW et al (2018) Five-year graft survival of descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (ek) versus descemet strip** ek and the effect of donor sex matching. Ophthalmology 125:1508–1514
Chamberlain W, Lin CC, Austin A et al (2019) Descemet endothelial thickness comparison trial: a randomized trial comparing ultrathin descemet strip** automated endothelial keratoplasty with descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 126:19–26
Dunker SL, Dickman MM, Wisse RPL et al (2020) Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus ultrathin descemet strip** automated endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 127(9):1152–1159
Mencucci R, Favuzza E, Marziali E et al (2020) Ultrathin descemet strip** automated endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a fellow-eye comparison. Eye Vis 7:25
Varadaraj V, Woreta FA, Stoeger CG et al (2020) Surgeon preference for endothelial keratoplasty techniques. Cornea 39:2–7
Chamberlain W, Austin A, Terry M et al (2016) Survey of experts on current endothelial keratoplasty techniques. J Clin Exp Ophthalmol 65(3):198–209
Kisilevsky E, Srikumaran D, Chew HF (2021) Surgeon preferences for endothelial keratoplasty in Canada. Cornea. Epub ahead of print
Terry MA (2012) Endothelial keratoplasty: why aren’t we all doing descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty? Cornea 31:469–471
Yoeruek E, Rubino G, Bayyoud T et al (2015) Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in vitrectomized eyes: clinical results. Cornea 34:1–5
Al-Arfai KM, Yassin SA, Al-Beshri AS et al (2015) Indications and techniques employed for keratoplasty in the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia: 6 years of experience. Ann Saudi Med 35:387–393
Park CY, Lee JK, Gore PK et al (2015) Keratoplasty in the United States: a 10-year review from 2005 through 2014. Ophthalmology 122:2432–2442
Price MO, Giebel AW, Fairchild KM et al (2009) Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty prospective multicenter study of visual and refractive outcomes and endothelial survival. Ophthalmology 116:2361–2368
Ham L, Dapena I, Van Luijk C et al (2009) Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) for fuchs endothelial dystrophy: review of the first 50 consecutive cases. Eye 23(10):1990–1998
Dapena I, Ham L, Droutsas K et al (2011) Learning curve in descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: First series of 135 consecutive cases. Ophthalmology 118:2147–2154
Green M, Wilkins MR (2015) Comparison of early surgical experience and visual outcomes of DSAEK and DMEK. Cornea 34(11):1341–1344
Debellemanière G, Guilbert E, Courtin R et al (2017) Impact of Surgical Learning Curve in Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty on Visual Acuity Gain. Cornea 36:1–6
McKee HD, Jhanji V (2017) Learning DMEK from YouTube. Cornea 36:1477–1479
Hamzaoglu EC, Straiko MD, Mayko ZM et al (2015) The first 100 eyes of standardized descemet strip** automated endothelial keratoplasty versus standardized descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 122:2193–2199
Rodríguez-Calvo-De-Mora M, Quilendrino R, Ham L et al (2015) Clinical outcome of 500 consecutive cases undergoing descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 122:464–470
Alanazi LF, Aldossari SH, Gogandy MA et al (2019) Attitude, beliefs and awareness towards corneal donation in Saudi Arabia. Saudi J Ophthalmol 33:121–129
Funding
The study was not funded by any agency.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors participated in the study design. MA and NA participated in the data management and analysis. NA wrote the introduction section, MA wrote the methods and results sections, and AA wrote the discussion section. MA and MT interpreted the results and edited all of the sections. MT critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Authors declare no conflict or competing interests.
Ethical approval
The study was approved by the ethics board of King Abdullah International Medical Research Center.
Consent to participate
All participants voluntarily consented prior completing the questionnaire.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alnahdi, M.A., Alhabdan, N.A., Alfarhan, A. et al. Surgeons preferences in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Int Ophthalmol 42, 3681–3690 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-022-02365-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-022-02365-8